##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13992 of 2026 ==========================================================

BHUMIKABEN D/O JANAKKUMAR B BRAHMBHATT W/O CHIRAG RAJNDRAKUMAR RAO Versus COLLECTOR , AHMEDABAD & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. AMIT M LASHWANI(17434) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 05/11/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed for the following reliefs:-

“a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.08.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad i.e.

respondent No.1;

b) YOUR LORDSHIPS Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, declaring that the permission sought for by the petitioner vide application dated 02./07.04.2026 (Annexure) for N.A. use of her agricultural land, is deemed to have been granted in view of proviso to Section 65(1) of the Code;

c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 06.08.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad i.e. respondent No.1;

d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition, in view of the deeming fiction getting attracted in the case of petitioner as per proviso to Section 65(1) of the Code, be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps in case the petitioner uses the said land for non agricultural purpose, which was applied for by the petitioner;

e) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief in the facts and circumstances of the matter.”

2. Heard Mr.Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the State.

3. It is submitted by Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner that earlier the order passed by the Collector rejecting the application filed under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on the ground of not having the permission under Section 63 was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3097 of 2025. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 2^nd March, 2026 has allowed the petition directing the present petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code with a direction that the same shall be decided within a statutory period by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2019) 4 GLR 2578. It is submitted that thereafter fresh application was filed by the present petitioner on 07.04.2026, which is acknowledged by the authority on 11.04.2026, and despite the directions were issued to decide it in a statutory period, that is within 90 days, no such decision was taken upto 06.08.2026. It is submitted that, again on the same ground, without considering the directions issued by this Court, the application came to be rejected with an observation that the State authorities are in process of filing the Letters Patent Appeal. It is submitted that though the order is dated 2^nd March 2026, till date no such Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, and the application was rejected whereby the petitioner was sent from pillar to post again and again. It is submitted that in that background the impugned order is required to be quashed by imposing the exemplary cost to the Collector for not following the orders and directions issued by this Court.

4. Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned AGP has submitted that, at the relevant point of time, the Stat